Sixth Sense

You may be surprised to learn that humans may have six, rather than five, sensations of taste. When educators teach about the senses , they tell children that the sense of taste includes five sensations: sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and savory (the last one's kinda new too). The human tongue has separate chemical receptors for each taste, which grab different chemicals as you chew. Recent research in rats suggests that they have a sixth taste receptor, for calcium. Humans and rats share the two genes that account for calcium sensing in rats—CaSR and Tas1r3—and these may play the same role in humans.

This may explain why people often have an aversion to high-calcium foods like green vegetables...the clear exception being dairy products, whose high-fat content prevents the calcium from sticking to your tongue. As for most early research, further study is needed to confirm these findings. This just goes to show that knowledge...even scientific knowledge about our own bodies...is constantly under construction and deconstruction. Like an urban landscape, its constantly changing. New knowledge renovates old knowledge, or replaces it altogether.

The question is, if knowledge is constructed, how is it constructed? The Patterns of Thinking Method (aka DSRP) provides the mechanism for understanding the underlying structure of knowledge.

Taking perspective

Can you remember seeing something for the first time? Think of something that was once unfamiliar to you but is common to you today. Can you remember not what you saw with your eyes but what you saw with your mind? Can you remember that moment when you first saw "it" and formed a concept of it?

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the Apollo 8 mission captured the first image (below) of Earth from space. Can you remember that moment when a world that seemed inconceivably vast was seen from a perspective that made it seem infinitesimally small?

This photo not only changed our understanding of our Planet Earth but also of ourselves. It became clear that all of us--that is, all of the us's and them's--were merely castaways on a lonely raft floating in a black sea. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimensions." This single image stretched our minds and would make it difficult to conceive how we once thought about our Planet and ourselves before we saw it.

In June 2008, FUNAI, the Indian affairs agency of the Brazilian government released ariel photographs and video of an "uncontacted tribe" in the Amazon (NatGeo). The images (below) show natives in loincloths looking up at the aircraft and firing arrows.

What did these natives see? What construct did they form in their mind's eye? Whatever it is, it is surely not the same construct that you or I would form upon seeing an aircraft flying over head?

From their perspective, it would appear, they feel threatened so their construct must include some kind of thing that might do them harm. One can assume that the plane is totally, or at least somewhat unfamiliar, so perhaps they related it to other constructs in their prior knowledge. When they saw (with their mind) what we would call an aircraft, they likely did not recall various parts of the aircraft concept (e.g., wings, windows, body, tail, flying, engine, sound, pilot, people). So, what parts did they recognize? Did they hear the engine and think of it like a growling animal. Did they see its position in the sky above them and think of it as a bird or even a god or demon? If their initial reaction was fear and danger, did the circling aircraft reinforce this construct? Was the dangerous thing hunting them? Or, is it possible that my own prior knowledge of tribal society biases me from understanding or reflecting their true thoughts? Did they think, "It appears that our neighboring tribe has devised an ingenious surveillance device which they will soon use to harm us" or "Look guys! The Xchopetl tribe is playing another of their practical jokes on us. Let's pretend we are frightened."

Whatever they were thinking, one thing is certain. We do not interact directly with reality itself. Our interface to reality is the knowledge we construct about it. Our thinking is the process of creating this knowledge. Ideally, we would have our knowledge of reality align as closely as possible with reality itself--a noble but illusive goal. The fact that knowledge is our interface to reality and thinking is the process by which we create knowledge underscores the important role that understanding our thinking processes plays in our lives.

It is difficult to imagine exactly what these tribesman are thinking. What we do know is that they have a perspective that is unique to their experience and that their perspective causes them to: deconstruct the situation into various distinctions by putting boundaries around things and excluding other sense datum; split things into distinct parts or lump them into wholes; and interrelate one thing to another. DSRP may not make it entirely clear what they are thinking, for that we would have to communicate with them (and there are issues with that having to do with their own safety from exploitation or disease), but DSRP can help us to understand how their thoughts are structured exactly like ours. Thoughts are like ice cream. The flavors might be vastly different but the processes for making ice cream are all the same.

Everyday Thinking: Can DSRP help with marketing

In a recent post I discussed how DSRP can help to inoculate citizens against media manipulations. But can DSRP be used in the reverse to assist marketing and media moguls to develop better marketing? Here's an example of a recent Huggies advertisement in a national advertising campaign. At its core, the advertisement is a creative analogy between a brick, the other brand of diapers, Huggies and a human baby (eg, a not-brick).

Douglas Hofstadter said that "analogy is the core of cognition" and he is right in one sense because analogies are implicit in many, if not most, of our ideas and thoughts. But if by "core" Hofstadter means, "universal", then its a bit of a leap. That is, while analogies are ubiquitous, they are not universal. In other words, there are more fundamental cognitive structures at work that lie beneath the analogies. The Patterns of Thinking Method (aka DSRP) details the four cognitive structures that are required for an analogy to be made. For example, the standard form of an analogy is x:y::p:q. Where the notation ":" is read "is to" and the notation "::" is read "as". An example of this would be:

A human baby is to Huggies as a brick baby is to the other brand.

Let's add some notation so we can deconstruct this analogy. It should be noted that this underlying structure is universal to all analogies.

{{[a human baby] --is to-- [Huggies]} --as-- {[a brick baby] --is to-- [the other brand]}}

There are several things to note about this analogical structure which you can see by looking at the notation that contains these features below:

1. Note that there are four main distinctions [ ] and any of the items below (-- --, { }, { },) are also distinctly different from each other;
2. There are three relationships -- -- in an analogy;
3. Also note that there are many systems and subsystems, for example:
1. the whole analogy { }
2. the two sides of the analogy { }
3. each of the individual distinctions [ ] are also concepts made up of conceptual parts and they are therefore also systems
4. Indeed, the relationships themselves -- -- are also systems made up of conceptual parts. The relationship "is to" has to do with the concepts of equality, existence, and the verb to be whereas the relationship "as" has to do with likeness
4. Also note that the analogy, and all of its distinct parts, relationships and systems and subsystems have not only a root perspective but also numerous sub-perspectives. For example:
1. the root perspective of the analogy is the human perspective;
2. the idea that a brick might have a baby is an anthropomorphizing perspective; and
   
3. the perspective of shape/linearity is an essential one in order to understand the advertisement. The argument is that those other diapers are linear and ours are not. Humans are curvilinear and so are Huggies.

We can see that DSRP is universal to analogies of any kind. ThinkBlocks were developed as a pedagogical tool for teaching thinking skills based on the Patterns of Thinking Method (DSRP). The beauty of ThinkBlocks is that you can build any idea you can think of, just like we can build the analogy (or any analogy) in the Huggies advertisement.

Notice that the distinction blocks are systems (they have parts). So are the relationship blocks. Notice too that each block's perspective mirror indicates that any of the concepts in the system can be a unique perspective from which to view the system. Each block says for things simultaneously:

1. "I'm a concept. I'm distinct, write on me and make me different than other ideas!"
2. "I'm a concept. I can be a system if you put parts in me or I can be part of a larger system!"
3. "I'm a concept. Relate me to other concepts...I'm magnetic!"
4. "I'm a concept. I can be a unique perspective or point of view on any part of this system or the whole."

The unique dynamics of DSRP make it a robust cognitive model, much more flexible and adaptable than modern logics. DSRP then, can help people construct or deconstruct any kind of idea...even a manipulative one.

DSRP is an Inoculation Against Media Manipulation

There are countless examples of media manipulation. More than ever, we are bombarded with them. But, these attempts to convince us, get our vote, or relieve us of our money, are getting much more subtle and sophisticated. It would be easy to choose the obvious ones:

• John Stewart is constantly poking fun at CNN for its un-journalistic tagline, "The Best Political Team on Television" or try doing some semiotics on their enigmatic equivalency, "CNN=Politics".
• The recent spat of political ads are always entertaining. Notice the deep voice, ominous music, and jittery camera angles that are used to vilify the opposition.
  

These are too easy. I wanted to pick something a bit more innocuous, subtle, even harmless to analyze. In this case (right click on image to expand), the media manipulation is simply that you'll be more convinced of the authors' advice and expertise and, perhaps, you'll buy a Brooks Brothers' suit?

If you're a short and portly executive, then GQ magazine has advice for you. Follow the money trail. I dounbt that the author has much to gain directly from the manipulative montage. So why would they spend so much time carefully choreographing two images of the same guy to look so...well, distinctly different? Is it the marketeers version of Sir Edmund Hillary's reason for the first ascent on Everest--"because its there" becomes "because we can". Why spend so much time and thought to manipulate the reader? What does the author stand to gain? Ironically, the advice the author of the article gives is good advice but why the need for slight of hand and magic mirrors?

Let's take a look at this recent article in GQ and use DSRP as an analytical tool that cuts through the manipulations. The "before" guy on the left and the "after" guy on the right are the same guy. Clearly, the after photo is much better. He looks better. The suit fits him better. So, GQ's fashion advice is good advice. But look at both images again. There are two camera perspectives, where there should only be one (for comparison). Other than the clothing (which is presumably supposed to be the only difference here) what other things are distinctly different? This "difference" is actually a system of interrelated differences:

• After, the man is smiling (perhaps because of his new hot look?).
  
• His after hair is a bit more lofty.
  
• He's holding his sunglasses not wearing them (Why?).
  
• Most of all, he's standing straight on in the before pose whereas he is in a more flattering athletic stance afterward. This stance alone, makes the difference between before and after accentuated.

But why? If the makeover is so successful, shouldn't it be better looking on its own merits (the suit, tie, shoes, etc.) not on the manipulations of the photographer?

And, if this much forethought and manipulation is put into a simple GQ article where there is little to gain, what level of care and detail might advertisers give when there's some real money on the line? Or, did I miss something? Is the article itself just an advertisement for Hickey Freeman, Brooks Brothers and Modo for NetJets? If its an advertisement, why is it posing as a "how to" article?

An Eye, Feel, and Love of Ideas

One of my mother's hard and fast rules was that you had to be at dinner every night. I'm glad she made that rule. I've since come to regard my family dinner time as my alma mater, the time and place where I learned to think critically and creatively and gained deep understanding of a range of topics. Alma mater literally translates to "bounteous mother". The phrase originally referred to someone or something that provided nourishment. Growing up, my family dinner table provided both the nutritional and intellectual nourishment I would need to thrive in life.

At that carved wooden dining table I learned to learn and to think, to question, to problem solve, and to understand. At that table, I became fascinated with mathematics, science, politics, literature, human psychology, culture and society. We were allowed to play with our food. In fact, my father had a habit of using anything on the table to represent any idea we were in the midst of discussing. The habit rubbed off on my brothers, sisters, and me. To this day, a ramekin of sugar packets, found on nearly any dining table, will suffice to explore and explain even the most complex ideas.

"Dad, what do they mean by "Reaganomics?"

"Reaganomics is a portmanteau—a fusion—of President Reagan and economics," he'd say as he held at arms length and then squished together two chunks of soft bread. Then he shaped the new hunk of bread into a finger bowl and held it out in front of him for us to see. "Reaganomics has four key components," he continued dropping a piece of cut up chicken into the bread bowl as he listed each. "Reduce government spending, regulation, taxes, and inflation." Pleased, he would take a bite of his Reaganomic sandwich.

"Dad, what's regulation mean?"

"Well, if you take this large spoon and this small spoon and scoop rice from the bowl, you'll see that the structure of the spoon—its size—regulates the amount of rice that..."

And so it went every night at dinnertime. These early experiences growing up had two effects. First, it made it virtually impossible for me to eat at my friend's houses. More importantly, my alma mater gave me an eye, a feel, and a love for the "secret lives" of ideas and led me to study how we make ideas. It gave me an eye for ideas. No longer were ideas unconscious and entangled in my head—I could see them on the table. It gave me a feel for ideas. I could move them, combine ideas with others, hold them up to be the object of focus. It also gave me a great love of ideas. Ideas were to be played with, fashioned, constructed, combined, interrelated, explored.

How are ideas structured? Are there universal patterns to the way knowledge is created and how it changes? How is thinking related to knowledge? The construction of ideas has been at the center of my research for over fifteen years.